On the opposite end of the spectrum, I would’ve preferred to see the events you mention over the at times ridiculously fairy-tale-like romance. What my friend’s mom would find offensive, I find interesting, but Hollywood has to take both points of view into account. They walk a fine line, trying to appease both parties, but unfortunately it often leads to results like this: a mediocre movie full of wasted potential.

Another problem is, where you and I would base our story on history, I think Hollywood directors take their ‘vision’ and then sprinkle in some historical facts. Public Enemies suffers from this syndrome: the romance took precedence, and Michael Mann included historical truths where it was convenient. But at least Public Enemies included as much truth as it did; its predecessors were much less accurate.

In the end, though, this movie would probably have been a lot better if someone like you had worked on it; you wouldn’t pull your punches.

For instance, you picked up on the way the comical scoping out of banks and the hollywood story they used one time were omitted. But certain other aspects were totally overlooked. Nelson still died in a massive hail of bullets, but it took 17 shots to down him and he killed further officers, including Purvis’ replacement, Samuel COwley in his final battle.

Also, if you look, in mid1934, after numerous jailbreaks, the government seemed to prefer the criminals dead rather than alive. The most recent evidence suggests that Dillinger fell and was shot while prone on the ground, which suggests execution without trial. The same is claimed of pretty boy floyd. Homer Van Meter is innocuously killed in the film when he was in fact abushed by four policemen and even had some of fingers shot off, he had dozens of bullet wounds. ‘Probasco’ an unmentioned associate of Dillinger who ACTUALLY helped him hide out in his last days was thrown from the top of FBI headquarters. Evidence suggests the cost of policing this guys and the lives they took was getting out of hand and the government executed them without a jury.

The fact MAkley and Pierpont just disappear from the story is also a little stupid, considering tehy tried to break out of jail again with clarke. Clarke retreated back to his sell mid-escape since he had not recieved a death sentence and the other two were killed in a brutal shootout.

These are missed tricks in my opinion to shed a different, possibly truer and unadressed light on the story.

I also found the love story to be very innacurate and just a hook for the romantics. Frechette and Dillinger were renowned for public arguements and once she was arrested he actually met a new girl named ‘Polly Hamilton’ and when he was killed, he had a pocket watch with HER picture in it. Not Frechette’s. Another stupid anachronism is that in the gang’s final robbery, it is largely agreed that Pretty Boy Floyd was part of the gang, but since he had died 90 minutes previous this became impossible. Also, Edward Shouse comes to him to plan one of the last jobs, when in fact he was in prison from 1933. Also he was kicked out of the gang for trying to hit on Billie Frechette. Walter Diedrich actually escaped Michigan City but was rearrested a few months later.

I understand what you say in the film’s defence and do agree with certain aspects of the arguement. Also, the review is quite a good one, but I feel that such a bredth of inaccuracy takes alot of exciting elements of the initial story and substitutes them for endearing character moments. I know u say Babyface Nelson is depicted as evil, but this guy was something else. They all killed to ensure their freedom, I mean Homer Van Meter was responsible for numerous killings for instance. The gangsters are just a little too clean cut and their desperation for money and freedom in not depicted well since the director was too concerned about how cool they look in a fedora, a suit and wielding a thompson.

The hero doesn’t always have to die last, and what is wrong with a montage, perhaps of the last days of the remaining crew after Dillinger is slain. In my opinion, the reason Van Meter and Nelson die in such a way is to give Purvis the credit for it. When in actually fact he achieved very little, Samuel COwley should definitely have featured more prominently.

As you can see, I am quite passionate about the subject and did appreciate some of Mann’s reasons, but they were simply to create a typical hollywood formula, and that is a clichéd approach to take and disappointing to see a director with so much financial backing and opportunity take such a lazy and conventional approach to one of the greatest stories of all time.

You are right that this film takes a lot of liberties with the time line of events (which I admitted in my review). John Dillinger is the last man standing in Public Enemies, and while that’s inaccurate I understand why they did it: John Dillinger is the star of the movie, and people expect loose ends to be tied up by the time the credits roll.

I did also mention that “the police and FBI are actually less incompetent in Public Enemies than they were in real life.” Since Public Enemies is a movie and not a documentary, an identifiable antagonist is needed, and that’s the role Purvis plays. Purvis screwed up a lot more in real life than he does in the movie, but a totally incompetent G-Man is an uninteresting match against a cunning bank robber.

So, all in all, I agree and disagree with you at the same time. Public Enemies is nowhere near as great as it could have been. If I were comparing this to a documentary, then it would be horribly inaccurate, but it’s a Hollywood production and it needs fictionalization to streamline events and create tension. Important details like John Dillinger’s charming personality and the FBI’s immoral tactics are historically accurate, and these aspects have more impact in a movie than the order of events.

I recommend reading “‘Public Enemies’ No. 1 (in historical accuracy, writer says),” where the author of Public Enemies: America’s Greatest Crime Wave and the Birth of the FBI, Bryan Burrough, talks about this and other gangster movies.

Simple research into the lives of these people shows the film is littered with inaccuracies. Purvis was demoted from his role of leading the investigation and the ‘sharpshooters’ he requested in the movie were actually forced upon him due to his constant failings. Also, the little bohemia disaster occured before the failed robbery with Nelson, chronolgy and truth are not important to the film. In fact, drama and convenience are put much more highly than anything else in this movie. Entertaining action scenes but a superficial look at Dillinger’s love live, countless chances missed and a horribly distorted view of everthing that went on.

This could have been the best movie ever made but instead the chance was wasted. I wish I could have written it, I am certain that the story is almost guarunteed to entertain regardless of the movie, but Mann had the budjet to make this a legendary film. A chance which he did not take.

I’m just hoping that the fact they have five hours to tell the final book (in two movies) means a whole heap of explanation coming in.

Despite the quibbles, though, I enjoyed this film a lot. Could have done with another half an hour and a few of those missing scenes you mentioned.